Okay, so it may or may not be well known that Mark Waid had problems with John Byrne's 1986 retelling of Supes' origin in the MAN OF STEEL origin. He tried unsuccessfully IMO to erase the Byrne stuff.

What were those problems he had with it?

And also, who the hell does he think he is? Birthright was just okay and the MOS miniseries is like, legendary! The art is MOS is way better and the story is a lot better.

So, what were his issues?

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

Mark Waid's issue with The Man of Steel was simply that John Byrne replaced the Silver Age/Bronze Age Mort Weisinger Superman that Mark Waid loved with an updated version of Superman that was closer to the Golden Age Superman, instead of the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman from Mark Waid's childhood. Mark Waid admitted, "I was one of the wailers years ago when Byrne did his stint." http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=2595

There is no more "real" version of Superman than the original Golden Age version that was conceived and created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. And The Man of Steel returned Superman closer to the Golden Age roots, while also updating Superman for a contemporary audience.
The Man of Steel restored Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton. In the Golden Age this was the standard.
With Silver Age Mort Weisinger concepts of Krypto the Super Dog, Beppo the Super Monkey, Kara Zor-El Supergirl, the Argo City citizens in the Survival Zone, and millions of Kryptonians in the Bottled City of Kandor, etc., in the Silver Age/Bronze Age one began to wonder if anybody really died when Krypton exploded.
The Man of Steel returned to Clark's powers gradually developing, multiplying as he grew over the years, as Jerry Siegel had intended.
The Silver Age/Bronze Age Mort Weisinger Superman feels like a "stranger in a strange land", and pines for Krypton, says "Great Rao" and spends his spare time in a Fortress shrine to Krypton in solitude. The Golden Age Superman by Jerry Siegel didn't pine for Krypton, he was upbeat, smiling, secure hero, with a sly sense of humor, and toyed with criminals humorously.

John Byrne brought that back in The Man of Steel.
John Byrne had Clark Kent display some confidence, exhibiting some aggressiveness and bravery again, which Siegel had Clark display in the Golden Age.
John Byrne scaled back Superman's powers closer to the original Golden Age power level, giving Superman limitations again. He couldn't time travel, he couldn't move planets around, or survive without any air indefinitely, he had to noticeably strain and struggle against super-powered foes. The Man of Steel brought back Lois as a tough, competitive, aggressive reporter, making her a much more independent and sane character again than the Silver Age/Bronze Age Weisinger Lois spending her life trying to get Superman to marry her and prove that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person. As soon as DC gave Siegel and Shuster the boot the Lois who was supposed to be Clark’s independent, feisty, strong-willed rival reporter competing for stories was turned into a woman intent on proving that Clark Kent is Superman.
Superman was originally a champion of the oppressed versus corruption of the law at the highest levels, rich corrupt LexCorp Lex Luthor hiding behind a mask of respectability was a return to that concept. The Man of Steel brought Luthor closer to his roots. Luthor was originally a red haired dictator - a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. He wore business suits. Here is Luthor in Superman #4 (1940), written by Jerry Siegel and drawn by Paul Cassidy.
[
Luthor in The Man of Steel was red haired and wore business suits and was certainly a ruler assuming sole and absolute power. He was also a con-man. He had scientists working for him and Jerry Siegel's Golden Age Luthor had a scientific lab assistant working for him. Luthor originally met Superman as an adult and hated Superman because he's powers were a threat. The Man of Steel was a return to that concept.
Why is bring a character back to it's roots good? To get back closer to what it was meant to be. It does make sense from a entertainment and business stand point to get back closer to what made Superman such a hit in the first place. The Man of Steel realized that and presented Superman, Lois, Luthor closer to Jerry Siegel's creation.

"I have taken my standard 'Back to the Basics' approach," John Byrne says about his work on Superman. "Everything that has accumulated over the years has been the result of people trying to do something different. So now I'm taking Superman back to the basics, and that becomes different because it hasn't been done in so long. It's basically Siegel and Shuster's Superman meets the Fleischer Superman in 1986."

The Man of Steel has an obvious connection and continuity throughout. It's the modern age updating of Superman's origin and big events in his history, like his first meeting Lois, Luthor, Batman, etc., for a contemporary audience.
Birthright is a lot of Silver Age nostalgia and pandering to the Smallville TV show fans. There is no need for Birthright, Superman: Secret Origin and the current rebooted Action Comics to exist. Like Batman: Year One (1986), if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and The Man of Steel (1986) wasn't broken.
I always highly recommend The Man of Steel...

__________________Half-man, half-bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

Manbat I adore you, those articles were amazing thanks!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Honesty, God bless you Man-Bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Wow, brilliant post, man. Seriously, I couldn't possibly counter debate that. That post is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. You're obviously a true scholar of Batman lore
You've convinced me. Well played, sir. It's great to debate with someone who has the hard facts to back up what they say

Mark Waid's issue with The Man of Steel was simply that John Byrne replaced the Silver Age/Bronze Age Mort Weisinger Superman that Mark Waid loved with an updated version of Superman that was closer to the Golden Age Superman, instead of the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman from Mark Waid's childhood. Mark Waid admitted, "I was one of the wailers years ago when Byrne did his stint."

There is no more "real" version of Superman than the original Golden Age version that was conceived and created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. And The Man of Steel returned Superman closer to the Golden Age roots, while also updating Superman for a contemporary audience.
The Man of Steel restored Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton. In the Golden Age this was the standard. With Silver Age Mort Weisinger concepts of Krypto the Super Dog, Beppo the Super Monkey, Kara Zor-El Supergirl, the Argo City citizens in the Survival Zone, and millions of Kryptonians in the Bottled City of Kandor, etc., in the Silver Age/Bronze Age one began to wonder if anybody really died when Krypton exploded. The Silver Age/Bronze Age Mort Weisinger/Elliot Maggin Superman feels like a "stranger in a strange land", and pines for Krypton, says "Great Rao" and spends his spare time in a Fortress shrine to Krypton in solitude. The Golden Age Superman by Jerry Siegel didn't pine for Krypton, he was upbeat, smiling, secure hero, with a sly sense of humor, and toyed with criminals humorously.
John Byrne brought that back in The Man of Steel.
The Man of Steel had Clark Kent display some confidence again. John Byrne said that DC's then Publisher/President Jenette Kahn and Vice President/Executive Editor Dick Giordano wouldn't let him return Superman's powers to the original level by Jerry Siegel. However, John Byrne was allowed to scale back Superman's powers closer to the original Golden Age power level, giving Superman limitations again. He couldn't time travel, he couldn't move planets around, or survive without any air indefinitely, he had to noticeably strain and struggle against super-powered foes. The Man of Steel brought back Lois as a tough, competitive, aggressive reporter, making her a much more independent and sane character again than the Silver Age/Bronze Age Weisinger Lois spending her life trying to get Superman to marry her and prove that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person. As soon as DC gave Siegel and Shuster the boot the Lois who was supposed to be Clark’s independent, feisty, strong-willed rival reporter competing for stories was turned into a woman intent on proving that Clark Kent is Superman.
Superman was originally a champion of the oppressed versus corruption of the law at the highest levels, rich corrupt LexCorp Lex Luthor hiding behind a mask of respectability was a return to that concept. The Man of Steel brought Luthor closer to his roots. Luthor was originally a red haired dictator - a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. He wore business suits. Here is Luthor in Superman #4 (1940), written by Jerry Siegel and drawn by Paul Cassidy.

[/U][/B]Luthor in The Man of Steel was red haired and wore business suits and was certainly a ruler assuming sole and absolute power. He was also a con-man. He had scientists working for him and Jerry Siegel's Golden Age Luthor had a scientific lab assistant working for him. Luthor originally met Superman as an adult and hated Superman because he's powers were a threat. The Man of Steel was a return to that concept.
Why is bring a character back to it's roots good? To get back closer to what it was meant to be. It does make sense from a entertainment and business stand point to get back closer to what made Superman such a hit in the first place. The Man of Steel realized that and presented Superman, Lois, Luthor closer to Jerry Siegel's creation.

"I have taken my standard 'Back to the Basics' approach," John Byrne says about his work on Superman. "Everything that has accumulated over the years has been the result of people trying to do something different. So now I'm taking Superman back to the basics, and that becomes different because it hasn't been done in so long. It's basically Siegel and Shuster's Superman meets the Fleischer Superman in 1986."

The Man of Steel has an obvious connection and continuity throughout. It's the modern age updating of Superman's origin and big events in his history, like his first meeting Lois, Luthor, Batman, etc., for a contemporary audience.
Birthright is a lot of Silver Age nostalgia and pandering to the Smallville TV show fans. There is no need for Birthright, Superman: Secret Origin and the current rebooted Action Comics to exist. Like Batman: Year One (1986), if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and The Man of Steel (1986) wasn't broken.
I always highly recommend The Man of Steel...

And to retort:
Compare it to:
Obviously, both Byrne and Waid took some inspiration from the Golden Age, which is fine, because the Golden Age was awesome. Comparing the two, I'd say Birthright stayed truer to the spirit of the character and was a generally-better told story.

__________________
"Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., nicknamed "Teddy" or "TR", was born October 27, 1858 in New York City. As a young child, he was often sick and was stricken with asthma. Viewing this as a challenge, he proceeded to beat his asthma to death."- Cracked

Obviously, both Byrne and Waid took some inspiration from the Golden Age, which is fine, because the Golden Age was awesome. Comparing the two, I'd say Birthright stayed truer to the spirit of the character and was a generally-better told story.

So it sounds like Mark Waid is nothing more than a crybaby silver-age apologist! For me, Birthright hit on the main points but wasn't as well rounded as Byrne's work. The additions of Birthright were long and drawn out as it relied on too much dialogue to explain certain things.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

In The Man of Steel, Clark Kent, the real person, creates the new Clark Kent as a disguise to hide his super self with glasses, his hair slicked back and stoops a tad.
The Golden Age Superman was a social crusader and also was iconically very patriotic, aiding service men and fighting for his country was important to him.
The Modern Age Superman by John Byrne was no more a "Government stooge" than the patriotic Golden Age version. He was a crusader for social justice, he was dealing with corruption in the big business establishment in high places against Luthor and LexCorp, and was not hesitate to get himself involved in a social and political issue. He was shown at the White House discussing and debating with President Ronald Reagan in Legends (1987).

__________________Half-man, half-bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

Manbat I adore you, those articles were amazing thanks!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Honesty, God bless you Man-Bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Wow, brilliant post, man. Seriously, I couldn't possibly counter debate that. That post is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. You're obviously a true scholar of Batman lore
You've convinced me. Well played, sir. It's great to debate with someone who has the hard facts to back up what they say

My absolute favorite change John Byrne, Marv Wolfman, and DC did for the 1986 reboot was restoring Kal-El/Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton.

__________________ Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul I swear: until my dream where dignity, honor, and justice becomes the reality we all share I'll never stop fighting. Ever - Superman

My absolute favorite change John Byrne, Marv Wolfman, and DC did for the 1986 reboot was restoring Kal-El/Superman's uniqueness as the Sole Survivor of Krypton.

Which lead to Matrix Supergirl, Kandor-That-Isn't-Kandor, Eradicator, Pocket Universe Zod and **** like that... you cannot have your cake and eat it too. I can see the appeal of the idea but you just have to sacrifice so much to make it work. Kryptonians appeared already in the early 50s, so.

When an idea is out of the bag you simply cannot kill it. Writers and editors (especially) will never have the discipline to keep him the sole survivors, sooner or later the first cop-outs happen and then they don't care anymore.

Well to be fair, the Golden Age Superman didn't even know he was from Krypton until the late 40's when Kryptonite was finally brought into the comics.

That's right. The Golden Age Superman, written by Jerry Siegel, didn't even know about Krypton. Superman in the comics didn't learn of Krypton and Kryptonite until Superman #61 (1949), written by Bill Finger. And the Modern Age Superman in The Man of Steel, written by John Byrne, also didn't even know about Krypton until years after he had been crimefighting as Superman (in The Man of Steel #6 (1986)), and he discovers what Kryptonite is (in Superman #1 (1987)) only a few weeks after discovering about Krypton (in The Man of Steel #6 (1986)). In Superman #1 (1987), Superman tells Lois, "I'm not from Earth. I grew up here, but I'm native to a world called Krypton. I only discovered the truth myself, a few weeks ago."

__________________Half-man, half-bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaRkVeNgeanCe

Manbat I adore you, those articles were amazing thanks!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Honesty, God bless you Man-Bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Wow, brilliant post, man. Seriously, I couldn't possibly counter debate that. That post is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. You're obviously a true scholar of Batman lore
You've convinced me. Well played, sir. It's great to debate with someone who has the hard facts to back up what they say

Like most things, it's much easier to attack something in hindsight. You can pick every little thing apart and say what "you would've done" to make it better. I've never been under the impression that Mark Waid is a very positive guy. He seems to have this stigma associated with him. That doesn't just come out of thin air. IMO you don't trample on a guy like Byrne, or try and totally undo what he's done. If you wanna put your own spin on something, that's fine, but be faithful to the greats. Mark Waid could've easily done his own thing with Superman and said absolute zero about Byrne's work. There's no need to tear down someone else's legacy from 20+ years prior to make yourself feel better, or talk up your own project. That's not the way someone like Waid, who's supposed to be a class act, should behave.

LOL, you're probably right. I certainly wasn't defending Byrne over Waid or anything. It just seems to me that if you don't like someone's work you don't call them out on it... Show a little grace and say something like "Here's what I don't like about Superman since 1986 and here's what I'm changing"... not hard.

It just seems to me that the 1986 stuff and on well into the 90's did this thing with Superman where he was made very contemporary and fresh but kept what was always so strong about the character since his inception. I think after Jurgens, Stern, Ordway etc. kind of left the character, something just hasn't been the same. I can't put my finger on it.

__________________Jerry and Joe were gentlemen. Bob Kane was a thief and a glory-hound who was more concerned about profit and prestige. I cannot bring myself to believe the same things about Stan Lee in regards to his two main contributors, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. I'm inclined to believe Stan's version of events as he has usually been very willing to credit his co-conspirators, but the truth is because different versions of credit exists, we will never truly know.

It just seems to me that the 1986 stuff and on well into the 90's did this thing with Superman where he was made very contemporary and fresh but kept what was always so strong about the character since his inception. I think after Jurgens, Stern, Ordway etc. kind of left the character, something just hasn't been the same. I can't put my finger on it.

The Stern/Ordway Superman had a dry sense of humor. This helped humanize him.

......and that is the key to a great Superman....he must seem more human. Superman is Clark Kent in disguise, not the other way around (in spite of the way he was originally described, most notably in the '50s TV series). Superman works best when it is acknowledged that Clark is the real person and Superman is a vehicle to use his abilities. BTW Secret Origins may not have been a masterpiece, but it's looking pretty good compared to this new stuff. I know it may still be too early to tell.....thus I remain as open minded and optimistic as I can be.

__________________" Again you seek to play the hero, little madman. Again you pay the price!"

......and that is the key to a great Superman....he must seem more human. Superman is Clark Kent in disguise, not the other way around (in spite of the way he was originally described, most notably in the '50s TV series). Superman works best when it is acknowledged that Clark is the real person and Superman is a vehicle to use his abilities. BTW Secret Origins may not have been a masterpiece, but it's looking pretty good compared to this new stuff. I know it may still be too early to tell.....thus I remain as open minded and optimistic as I can be.

With all that said i think you don't like golden age Superman very much, i mean, Clark Kent was the disguise during that era, the new superman origin with Superman impulsive and behaving like he is right now, all that was based from the golden age superman stories

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by childeroland

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

No argument there, you are absolutely right. I do however have a fondness for the nostalgia of the Golden Age, but I prefer the interpretation of Superman as being very in touch with his humanity and the acknowledgement that he is the kind of man that he is because of Jonathan and Martha. He has his abilities because he is Kryptonian, but he does not act like an alien.This Superman does not seem like the leader and role model the previous version was. I think him having Ma and Pa Kent to go to to get away from his responsibilities as Superman made him more appealing than ever, then when he married Lois he could also turn to her.Now that is gone and I don't particularly like that. I will always be a devoted Superman fan, but this new 52 stuff is taking a lot of effort for me to like what they're doing with Superman; I really hate this new look.

__________________" Again you seek to play the hero, little madman. Again you pay the price!"

Mark Waid is generally regarded as one of the best comic book writers of the past 20 years, has served as an editor, and editor in chief for various comic book companies, and has written several works/runs that are consistently listed as some of the best in recent memory.

So yeah, I think he has the credibility to say if he likes or doesn't like a comic story.